2011年12月英语六级真题(缺少前两个深度阅读和翻译).doc

2011年12月英语六级作文题目：The way to success Directions:For this part,you are allowed 30 minutes to write a short essay entitled The Way to Success by commenting on Abraham Lincolns famous remark,Give me six hours to chop down a tree,and I ill spend the first four sharpening the axe.You should write at least 150 words but no more than 200 words.II快速阅读2011年12月英语六级快速阅读真题原文出炉：竟又是选自英国卫报！原文发自2009年8月，题目Googles plan for worlds biggest online library: philanthropy or act of piracy? 谷歌欲建立全球最大线上图书馆：是做慈善、还是对隐私宣战？Googles plan for worlds biggest online library: philanthropy or act of piracy?Google has already scanned 10 million books in its bid to digitise the contents of the worlds major libraries, but a copyright battle now threatens the project, with Amazon and Microsoft joining authors and publishers opposed to the scheme.In recent years the worlds most venerable libraries have played host to some incongruous visitors. In dusty nooks and far-flung stacks, teams of workers dispatched by Google have been beavering away to make digital copies of books. So far, Google has scanned more than 10 million titles from libraries in America and Europe including half a million volumes held by the Bodleian in Oxford. The exact method it uses is unclear; the company does not allow outsiders to observe the process.Why is Google undertaking such a venture, so seemingly out-of-kilter with its snazzy, hi-tech image? Why is it even interested in all those out-of-print library books, most of which have been gathering dust on forgotten shelves for decades? The company claims its motives are essentially public-spirited. Its overall mission, after all, is to organise the worlds information, so it would be odd if that information did not include books. Like the Ancient Egyptians who attempted to build a library at Alexandria containing all the known worlds scrolls, Google executives talk of constructing a universal online archive, a treasure trove of knowledge that will be freely available or at least freely searchable for all.The company likes to present itself as having lofty, utopian aspirations. This really isnt about making money is a mantra. We are doing this for the good of society. As Santiago de la Mora, head of Google Books for Europe, puts it: By making it possible to search the millions of books that exist today, we hope to expand the frontiers of human knowledge.Dan Clancy, the chief architect of Google Books, offers an analogy with the invention of the Gutenberg press Googles book project, he says, will have a similar democratising effect. He talks of people in far-flung parts being able to access knowledge as never before, of search queries leading them to the one, long out-of-print book they need.And he does seem genuine in his conviction that this is primarily a philanthropic exercise. Googles core business is search and find, so obviously what helps improve Googles search engine is good for Google, he says. But we have never built a spreadsheet outlining the financial benefits of this, and I have never had to justify the amount I am spending to the companys founders.It is easy, talking to Clancy and his colleagues, to be swept along by their missionary zeal. But Googles book-scanning project is proving controversial. Several opponents have recently emerged, ranging from rival tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon to small bodies representing authors and publishers across the world. In broad terms, these opponents have levelled two sets of criticisms at Google.First, they have questioned whether the primary responsibility for digitally archiving the worlds books should be allowed to fall to a commercial company. In a recent essay in the New York Review of Books, Robert Darnton, the head of Harvard Universitys library, argued that because such books are a common resource the possession of us all only public, not-for-profit bodies should be given the power to control them.The second, related criticism is that Googles scanning of books is actually illegal. This allegation has led to Google becoming mired in a legal battle whose scope and complexity makes the Jarndyce and Jarndyce case in Bleak House look straightforward.At its centre, however, is one simple issue: that of copyright. The inconvenient fact about most books, to which Google has arguably paid insufficient attention, is that they are protected by copyright. Copyright laws differ from country to country, but in general protection extends for the duration of an authors life and for a substantial period afterwards, thus allowing the authors heirs to benefit. (In Britain and America, this post-death period is 70 years.) This means, of course, that almost all of the books published in the 20th century are still under copyright and last century saw more books published than in all previous centuries combined. Of the roughly 40 million books in US libraries, for example, an estimated 32 million are in copyright. Of these, some 27 million are out of print.Outside the US, Google has made sure only to scan books that are out of copyright and thus in the public domain (works such as the Bodleians first edition of Middlemarch, which anyone can read for free on Google Books Search).But, within the US, the company has scanned both in-copyright and out-of-copyright works. In its defence, Google points out that it displays only snippets of books that are in copyright arguing that such displays are fair use. But critics allege that by making electronic copies of these books without first seeking the permission of copyright holders, Google has committed piracy.The key principle of copyright law has always been that works can be copied only once authors have expressly given their permission, says Piers Blofeld, of the Sheil Land literary agency in London. Google has reversed this it has simply copied all these works without bothering to ask.In 2005, the Authors Guild of America, together with a group of US publishers and publishers, launched a class action suit against Google that, after more than two years of wrangling, ended with an announcement last October that Google and the claimants had reached an out-of-court settlement. The full details are staggeringly complicated the text alone runs to 385 pages and trying to summarise it is no easy task. Part of the problem is that it is basically incomprehensible, says Blofeld, one of the settlements most vocal British critics.Broadly, the deal provides a mechanism for Google to reimburse authors and publishers whose rights it has breached (including giving them a share of any future revenue it generates from their works). In exchange for this, the rights holders agree not to sue Google in future.The settlement stipulates that a body known as the Books Rights Registry will represent the interests of US copyright holders. Authors and publishers with a copyright interest in a book scanned by Google who make themselves known to the registry will be entitled to receive a payment in the region of $60 per book as compensation.Additionally, the settlement hands Google the power but only with the agreement of individual rights holders to exploit its database of out-of-print books. It can include them in subscription deals sold to libraries or sell them individually under a consumer licence. It is these commercial provisions that are proving the settlements most controversial aspect.Critics point out that, by giving Google the right to commercially exploit its database, the settlement paves the way for a subtle shift in the companys role from provider of information to seller. Googles business model has always been to provide information for free, and sell advertising on the basis of the traffic this generates, points out James Grimmelmann, associate professor at New York Law School. Now, he says, because of the settlements provisions, Google could become a significant force in bookselling.Interest in this aspect of the settlement has focused on orphan works, where there is no known copyright holder these make up an estimated 5% to 10% of the books Google has scanned. Under the settlement, when no rights holders come forward and register their interest in a work, commercial control automatically reverts to Google. Google will be able to display up to 20% of orphan works for free, include them in its subscription deals to libraries and sell them to individual buyers under the consumer licence.The deal has in effect handed Google a swath of intellectual copyright. It is a mammoth potential bookselling market, says Blofeld. He adds it is no surprise that Amazon, which currently controls 90% of the digital books market, is becoming worried.But Dan Clancy of Google dismisses the idea that, by gaining control over out-of-print and orphan works, Google is securing for itself a significant future revenue stream. He points out that out-of-print books represent only a tiny fraction of the books market between 1% and 2%. This idea that we are gaining access to a vast market here I really dont think that is true.James Gleick, an American science writer and member of the Authors Guild, broadly agrees. He says that, although Googles initial scanning of in-copyright books made him uncomfortable, the settlement itself is a fair deal for authors.The thing that needs to be emphasised is that this so-called market over which Google is being given dominance the market in out-of-print books doesnt currently exist. Thats why theyre out of print. In real life, I cant see what the damage is its only good.It is by no means certain that the settlement will be enacted it is the subject of a fairness hearing in the US courts. But if it is enacted, Google will in effect be off the hook as far as copyright violations in the US are concerned. Many people are seriously concerned by this and the company is likely to face challenges in other courts around the world.Over the coming months, we will hear a lot more about the Google settlement and its ramifications. Although its a subject that may seem obscure and specialised, it concerns one of the biggest issues affecting publishing and, indeed, other creative industries the control of digital rights.No one knows the precise use Google will make of the intellectual property it has gained by scanning the worlds library books, and the truth, as Gleick points out, is that the company probably doesnt even know itself. But what is certain is that, in some way or another, Googles entrance into digital bookselling will have a significant impact on the book world in years to come. III听力/mp3IV深度阅读2011年12月英语六级仔细阅读真题第二篇选自英国卫报网站。原文发表于2008年12月，题目More UK universities should be profiting from ideas 更多英国大学应从创意获利。A recurring criticism of the UKs university sector is its perceived weakness in translating new knowledge into new products and services.Recently, the UK National Stem Cell Network warned the UK could lose its place among the world leaders in stem cell research unless adequate funding and legislation could be assured, despite an annual 40m spend by the Department of Health on all kinds of research.We should take this concern seriously as universities are key in the national innovation system and, in the face of the current economic turmoil, one of the few get out of jail cards still held by the nation.However, we do have to challenge the unthinking complaint that the sector does not do enough in taking ideas to market. The most recent comparative data on the performance of universities and research institutions in Australia, Canada, USA and UK shows that, from a relatively weak starting position, the UK now leads on many indicators of commercialisation activity.Our weaknesses show up in the rates of US patenting and license income arising from our efforts, but these have improved and there is no reason to believe that this trend will not be continued.When viewed at the national level, the policy interventions of the past decade, such as the sharp increase in research funding, the evolution of the Higher Education Innovation Fund and the continuation of the Research Assessment Exercise have helped transform the performance of UK universities. The evidence suggests the UKs position is much stronger than in the recent past and is still showing improvement.Now for the health warning. National data masks the very large variation in the performance of individual universities. The evidence shows that a large number of universities have fallen off the back of the pack, a few perform strongly and the rest chase the leaders.This type of skewed distribution is not peculiar to the UK and is mirrored across other economies. In the UK, research is concentrated: less than 25% of universities are in receipt of 75% of the research funding. These same universities are also the institutions producing the greatest share of PhD graduates, science citations, patents and license income. The effect of policies generating long-term resource concentration has also created a distinctive set of universities which are research-led and commercially active.As part of the debate on the future of higher education, John Denham, the innovation, universities and skills secretary, challenged authors to take a 10-15 year outlook on the direction of the sector.My report, Intellectual Property and Research Benefits, highlights the interrelationships which have evolved around research funding, graduate schools and the effective creation, management and exploitation of intellectual property. It seems clear that the concentration of research and commercialisation work creates differences between universities.A consequence of more than two decades of policy recognising and rewarding research excellence is further differentiation in the sector. At the same time, we need to increase the number of PhD students across a broad range of disciplines. This will generate an opportunity to develop the graduate schools at those universities with higher numbers of PhD registrations, to invest in more scholarships and to expand the training opportunities for PhD students by promoting courses linked to commercialisation skills and business development practices.The core objective for universities which are research-led must be to maximise the impact of their research efforts. Their purpose is not to generate funds to add to the bottom line of the university or to substitute other income streams. Rather, these universities should be generating the widest range of social, economic and environmental benefits. In return for the scale of investment, they should share their expertise in order to build greater confidence in the sector.Part of the economic recovery of the UK will be driven by the next generation of research commercialisation spilling out of our universities. On the evidence presented in my report, there are three dozen universities in the UK which are actively engaged in advanced research training and commercialisation work.If there was a greater coordination of technology transfer offices within regions and a simultaneous investment in the scale and functions of our graduate schools, universities could, and should, play a key role in positioning the UK for the next growth cycle.V完形填空2011年12月英语六级完型填空真题选自美国时代周刊网站。原文发表于200年7月，题目The Truth About Plastic 塑料的真相。If you know where to find a good plastic-free shampoo, can you tell Jeanne Haegele? Last September, the 28-year-old Chicago resident resolved to cut plastics out of her life. The marketing coordinator was concerned about what the chemicals leaching out of some common types of plastic might be doing to her body. She was also worried about the damage all the plastic refuse was doing to the environment. So she hopped on her bike and rode to the nearest grocery store to see what she could find that didnt include plastic. I went in and barely bought anything, Haegele says. She did purchase some canned food and a carton of milk-only to discover later that both containers were lined with plastic resin. Plastic, she says, just seemed like it was in everything.Shes right. Back when Dustin Hoffman received the most famous one-word piece of career advice in cinema history, plastic was well on its way to becoming a staple of American life. The U.S. produced 28 million tons of plastic waste in 2005-27 million tons of which ended up in landfills. Our food and water come wrapped in plastic. Its used in our phones and our computers, the cars we drive and the planes we ride in. But the infinitely adaptable substance has its dark side. Environmentalists fret about the petroleum needed to make it. Parents worry about the possibility of toxic chemicals making their way from household plastic into childrens bloodstreams. Which means Haegele isnt the only person trying to cut plastic out of her life-she isnt even the only one blogging about this kind of endeavor. But those whove tried know its far from easy to go plastic-free. These things are so ubiquitous that it is practically impossible to avoid coming into contact with them, says Frederick vom Saal, a biologist at the University of Missouri.Vom Saal is a prominent member of a group of researchers who have raised worrisome questions in recent years about the safety of some common types of plastics. We think of plastic as essentially inert; after all, it takes hundreds of years for a plastic bottle to degrade in a landfill. But as plastic ages or is exposed to heat or stress, it can release trace amounts of some of its ingredients. Of particular concern these days are bisphenol-a (BPA), used to strengthen some plastics, and phthalates, used to soften others. Each ingredient is a part of hundreds of household items; BPA is in